lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Hard lockups using 3.10.0
Date
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:52:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:07:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:38:37AM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm running 3.10.0 (from openSUSE packages) on an "Intel(R) Core(TM)
> > > > i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz". I got a hard lockup on one of my CPUs twice,
> > > > once with backtrace (see attached image). Graphics is the builtin
> > > > Intel, used with X 7.6 and KDE 4.10beta2 (basically current openSUSE
> > > > 12.3+KDE).
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware that I had done anything special, just "normal" desktop
> > > > and
> > > > development usage, but no heavy compile work at the moment the lockups
> > > > happened.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I can see commit_creds() doing some rcu pointers assignment and rcu
> > > calling into the scheduler which screams about a cpu runqueue of the
> > > task we're about to reschedule not being locked. Let's add some more
> > > people who should know better.
> >
> > Ok, for the other people too lazy to bother finding the picture:
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137353587012001&q=p3
> >
> > So we bug at:
> >
> > kernel/sched/core.c:519 assert_raw_spin_locked(&task_rq(p)->lock);
> >
> > and get there through:
> > resched_task()
> > check_preempt_wakeup()
> > check_preempt_curr()
> > try_to_wake_up()
> > autoremove_wake_function()
> > __call_rcu_nocb_enqueue()
> > __call_rcu()
> > commit_creds()
> > ____call_usermodehelper()
> > ret_from_fork()
> >
> > That don't make much sense though. Since:
> > try_to_wake_up()
> >
> > ttwu_queue()
> >
> > raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> > ttwu_do_activate()
> >
> > ttwu_do_wakeup()
> >
> > check_preempt_curr()
> >
> > check_preempt_wakeup()
> >
> > resched_task(rq->curr)
> >
> > assert_raw_spin_locked(task_rq(p)->lock)
> >
> > It would somehow mean that 'task_rq(rq->curr) != rq', that's completely
> > bonkers, we do after all have rq->lock locked.
> >
> > I must also say that I've _never_ seen this bug before.
>
> New one on me as well. Is this reproducible? If so, does it happen
> when CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n? (Given the call to call_rcu_nocb_enqueue(),
> I expect that you built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.) Can't say that I
> see how call_rcu_nocb_enqueue() would have caused this, but...
>
> Well, I supposed that if RCU's callback lists got corrupted, this
> (and much else besides) could in fact happen. Does your build have
> CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y? If not, could you please try it?

I will look tomorrow. This is a "standard" openSUSE kernel RPM, dunno right
now which repository. It is not really reproducible, it suddenly happened
again today but this time without backtrace.

Eike[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-11 22:01    [W:0.100 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site